Page 4885 - Week 13 - Thursday, 2 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY: As I said, earlier this week, we tabled a report that will aid the establishment of an anti-corruption integrity commission here in the territory. Whilst I should not respond to interjections, we have been very clear that there are two reasons why we think that should be put in place. One is that there are people in the community who have questions and they should rightfully have a place to take them so that they can be fairly judged by people with adequate powers to do that judgement properly. The second reason is a preventative mechanism to put a chilling effect on anybody who is thinking of undertaking corrupt behaviour because they know the prospects of being caught will be higher than ever.
Once it is established, I expect that a number of the seemingly unresolved matters that are being talked about in the community will be referred for a thorough investigation. That is certainly why I and all members of the committee have proposed such strong powers: it is so the commission can do the job that needs to be done to give our community confidence that if there is the threat of corruption in this town it can be thoroughly and properly investigated.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, our parliamentary agreement with Labor, which is a publicly available document for all to see, stipulates that we will not support motions of no confidence unless there is proven corruption or gross negligence. As I have outlined, we do not consider that the points raised in Mr Coe’s media release or those he has further spelled out today fall into either of those categories, and certainly not a case of proven corruption. On that basis we are unable to support this motion today.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (10.52): This motion that has been brought forward here today by the Canberra Liberals is a very serious one. A motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister is not something that is frequently brought before this Assembly, and it is never brought here through a decision that is taken lightly. As Mr Coe stated, this is a serious motion with serious implications. However, what we have seen so far from Mr Barr in his reply is a complete inability for self-reflection; a man devoid of the ability to take any responsibility for the serious shortcomings of his leadership of a government that has lost its way.
However, the case brought here today is a case that highlights corruption of power and undue influence. As Mr Coe has reiterated, corruption is more than criminal conduct; it is more than matters that can simply be investigated by the police.
As has been noted on numerous occasions in this place, there is no need for a reminder that ACT Labor has been in power in this town for a long time. Faces may have changed but the underpinning culture and the legacy of previous Labor governments remain evident on the benches opposite and in the culture of how they go about doing business. The culture is one of arrogance and contempt; contempt for those who dare to disregard the Labor decision-making process and that of their political apparatchik; that is, the union movement.
The longevity of a Labor-Green coalition in one form or another has created a legacy. Canberra is a small town, and we often refer to something we call the “Canberra
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video